the section where It was offered, but stated it would be in
order under the next section. My purpose in asking the
question now is, will I be recognized to offer the amendment, in view of the vote that has just been taken to shut off,
unfairly, proper amendments that the American people
want voted upon In this House?
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair does not think that the gentleman from Connecticut propounded a proper parliamentary inquiry, but in order to satisfy the gentleman, if the Chair is permitted, he intends to recognize the gentleman from Connecticut.
The gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Ferguson! Is recognized.
Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Ferguson: Page 20, line 18, strike out all at section 4.
Mr. BOILBAU. Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. BOILEAU. It is my understanding that the gen.'Je- Tn*m from New York offered that same amendment, and it was voted down.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York offered an amendment to strike out section 4 (a). That has been disposed of.
Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. Chairman, we have had a great deal of discussion today about the effect of this bill in time of war. I would like to call the attention of the membership to the possible effect of this section which ties up our merchant marine and puts an embargo on our foreign trade except on a cash-and-carry basis, in time of peace, to the effect it can have immediately.
You Members here who represent wheat and cotton sections of the country must certainly realize that the prices of those commodities are based on future conditions. They are sold on future deliveries, and under the basis of this section of the bill, no country in the world Is going to continue to come to this Nation for those products or any other products if she can get them from any other source. What nation would continue to trade with us? Trade is interchange of products. We cannot make this a one-sided proposition. You cannot say the values of our Imports and exports are such and such, and that amount of money does not make any difference in the national picture, but just consider rubber, this one product only, which amounts to some $350,000,000 annually, which might be considered unimportant In dollars; what if the importation of that product were shut off and all the big manufacturing industries in the automobile centers were cut off? It is not dollars and cents alone. We must maintain our trade. If this section Is cut out, it would return the bill to its original status of last year. If we do not vote to take this section out of the bill today, we give our world trade, which the Democratic Party under the leadership of Secretary Hull, has tried to bring back, the worst black eye since this House passed the Hawley-Smoot tariff bill in 1930.
If you do not think the State Department is aware of this situation, I would like to read the testimony of Mr. Hack- worth. legal adviser of the State Department, before the committee:
Mr. Chairman. 1 want to make It clear to the committee that the State Department la not advocating any particular blU. We are not advocating any particular legislation, and I. would not want that impression to get out. but we do feel that it would be a mistake to put an embargo on a large number of commodities and have stagnation of our trade here in this country that would give rise to a great many difficulties.
That is the State Department. In another instance Mr. Hackworth made this statement: If we are going to Include commodities at all. I think the suggestion of the chairman that you provide for passing of title would be far the better method of procedure. “If you are going to include them at all.” He infers that he wishes they were not included at all. Here is the Assistant Secretary of State before the Senate committee.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Oklahoma has expired.
Mr. NICHOLS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman may proceed for 5 additional minutes.
Mr. BOILEAU. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I regret to object, but the time has been limited. If the time will be extended to 35 minutes, I would not object, but the time has been limited.
Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. Chairman, may I have unanimous consent to proceed for 1 minute?
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection?
There was no objection.
Mr. FERGUSON. The Assistant Secretary of State pointed out that the trade in our products, such as cotton, would be channeled to other countries. Again I want to call attention to the statement of the chairman of the committee when he said:
If I had my way. I would exempt foodstuffs and clothing. Then he goes on to say: I hope the President will never put them in there; but under the Pittman bill they will all be In there.
Now. Mr. Chairman, let us strike out section 4 and save our trade, our commodity market, and last, but not least, our honor, and not put ourselves on record as saying we are going to trade with Japan and England alone, who control the seas, and the rest of the world can go elsewhere for their products. [Applause.]
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Oklahoma has again expired.
Mr. KLOEB. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. Chairman, I shall take only 4 minutes, In order to consume no more time than necessary.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman offers an amendment which would serve to strike out sections 4 (a) and (b) of the bill as offered by the House. By striking out section 4 (a) he would accomplish what the gentleman from New York a few moments ago unsuccessfully sought to accomplish, the elimination of subsection 4 (a). Subsection (a) gives to the President the discretion to limit the use of American ships in belligerent waters, or to restrict their use entirely if the peace, safety, and neutral position of the United States are endangered.
Section 4 (b) would require, in the wisdom of the Executive, if the peace and safety of the United States were endangered, the transfer of title to all goods and materials other than munitions of war that might be shipped from the shores of the United States.
I say to my friend, the gentleman from Oklahoma, that it has been my position from' the beginning, as I stated in a rather lengthy speech a few days ago, that personally I would be satisfied with the permanent reenactment of the present law prohibiting the export of munitions of war, the making of loans and credits, and permitting the travel of American citizens on belligerent ships only at their own risk; but I recognize the fact that there Is a great popular demand to attack this problem of American ships going into belligerent waters in wartime, and if we are to attack it at all, I say that we have evolved here perhaps the surest method of arriving at a satisfactory conclusion that could be evolved. Certainly, if we followed the provisions of the so-called Pittman bill, as enacted by another body, and sent to this House, making these provisions mandatory and automatic upon the outbreak of any little war on any part of the globe, certainly by so doing we would injure the shipping of the United States.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KLOEB. I yield.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. I call the gentleman’s attention to the fact that this section has already been limited to 2 years by the amendment of the gentleman from Connecticut.
Mr. KLOEB. These provisions have now by amendment in this body been limited to a period of 2 years, and, there¬
